ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces Fenofibrate Marketing Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, andLaboratoires Fournier, S.A. remain defendants in several lawsuits that were filed either with the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Delaware or with the Central District of California, alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims in connection with the sale of fenofibrate formulations.

One of the purported class actions was filed by Paul T. Regan with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in July 2005.

The other 14 purported class actions and five individual actionsare pending with the U.S. District Court for the District ofDelaware and were filed by:

Filing Date ----------- Alberto Litter August 2005

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund and Hector Valdes June 2005

Cindy Cronin July 2005

Diana Kim June 2005

Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers July 2005

Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. June 2005

Meijer, Inc. June 2005

Painters District Council No.30 Health and Welfare Fund June 2005

Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund June 2005

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund July 2005

Elaine M. Pullman June 2005

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. June 2005

Charles M. Shain July 2005

Vista Healthplan, Inc. June 2005

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. August 2005

Impax Laboratories June 2005

Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. August 2005

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. June 2005

Walgreen Co. June 2005

The plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble damages and other relief, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Abbott Laboratories -- http://www.abbott.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of a diversified line of healthcare products.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.--------------------------------------------------------------Abbott Laboratories continues to face a class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that was filed by employees who alleged that the spin-off of Hospira, Inc., from the Company adversely affected their employee benefits, according to the Company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc.," generally alleges that the Company's action is in violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974

The plaintiffs are former Abbott employees who assert that their transfer to Hospira, as part of the spin-off, adversely affected their employee benefits in violation of the ERISA, and that in their transfer, Abbott breached a fiduciary duty to them involving employee benefits.

The plaintiffs seek reinstatement as Abbott employees, or reinstatement as participants in Abbott's employee benefit plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly lost.

Abbott filed a response denying all substantive allegations.

The court had granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the breach of fiduciary claim.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman presiding.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Calif. Suits Over Norvir Re-Pricing--------------------------------------------------------------Abbott Laboratories faces several purported class actions that are all pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and which generally allege antitrust violations in connection with the 2003 Norvir re-pricing, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

A consolidated class action on behalf of individual consumers, John Doe 1 (filed in April 2004), and third party payors, Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare Fund (filed in October 2004), is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Several additional cases, including three purported class actions on behalf of direct purchasers, have been filed by:

-- Rite Aid, Inc. (filed in December 2007),

-- Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. (filed in December 2007),

-- GlaxoSmithKline (filed in November 2007),

-- Meijer, Inc. (filed in November 2007),

-- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (filed in November 2007), and

-- Safeway, Inc. (filed in October 2007).

Those suits are also pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble and punitive damages, injunctive, and other relief.

Abbott Laboratories -- http://www.abbott.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of a diversified line of healthcare products.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass.----------------------------------------------------------------Abbott Laboratories continues to face a purported class action titled, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456," according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, a number of cases, brought as purported class actionsor representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities,that allege generally that Abbott and numerous otherpharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information inconnection with certain drugs that are reimbursable underMedicare and Medicaid and by private payors are pending.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, the U.S. Departmentof Justice, State Attorneys General, and other state governmententities, generally seek monetary damages and injunctiverelief and attorneys' fees.

Abbott has filed or intends to file a response in each casedenying all substantive allegations.

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pre-trialpurposes with the U.S. District Court for the District ofMassachusetts under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as "Inre: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation,MDL 1456."

MDL 1456 includes:

-- a purported class action case in which plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B consumers and two Massachusetts classes of third party payors and other consumers (filed in June 2003);

-- seven state Attorneys General and two state county suits, including a consolidated New York counties/City of New York suit (filed in June 2005);

-- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida in May 2006); and

-- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc., unsealed against Abbott in August 2007 and in which the U.S. declined to intervene.

The MDL Court is transferring the case brought by the Montana Attorney General back to the Montana federal court for a ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment.

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Tariffs Increase Lawsuit Dismissed-----------------------------------------------------------A purported class action lawsuit filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv against Cellcom Israel Ltd. was dismissed with prejudice on February 18, 2008.

Filed in April 2007, the plaintiffs -- claiming to be subscribers of the defendants -- contend that the Company raised its tariffs unlawfully and in violation of its license, in pricing plans that include a commitment to purchase certain services for a fixed period (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).

Had the dismissed lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately $219.48 million.

The ruling, issued on Feb. 14, 2008, affirms and enforces an earlier decision that ruled the state regulatory agencies including the Arkansas Public Service Commission and the Texas Railroad Commission has exclusive jurisdiction and sole authority over gas rates, according to The Southeast Texas Record.

It came after defendants petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court, seeking an extraordinary writ to stop the Miller County Circuit Court from continuing with proceedings.

The Southeast Texas Record reports, Centerpoint argued that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in failing to recognize or obey the Arkansas Supreme Court's early opinion of June 7, 2007, in which the higher court ruled that the Arkansas Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the rate issues alleged in the case.

After the first opinion was released, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with the circuit court. However, the plaintiffs responded arguing that the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion did not dismiss any parties or any claims.

They further held that the opinion did not change the essence of the case, which the plaintiffs contend was about rates and not about fraud.

Thus, Judge Hudson denied the motions to dismiss, but stayed all Arkansas claims pending the public service commission's decision.

However, as reported by The Southeast Texas Record, the judge "explicitly refused to dismiss" the Arkansas plaintiff, and stated that venue was proper based the retention of the Arkansas residents' claims.

In the recently issued opinion by the Arkansas Supreme Court, the defendants were asking for the higher court to enforce its early decision and order the lower court to dismiss the case, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Case Background

The suit was filed on Oct. 8, 2004. Miller County, Ark., resident Weldon Johnson and Bowie County, Texas, resident Guy Sparks (later replaced by Angela Engledowl) filed the original complaint with the Miller County Circuit Court.

Named as defendants in the matter are (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007):

It purports to bring a class action on behalf of those who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1, 1994 to the date of class certification.

In general, the suit accuses defendants of fraudulently fixing the price of natural gas, conspiring to artificially inflate the cost of natural gas, and passing the cost to residential and commercial customers as a regular "add on" to their base charges (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2006).

CIGNA CORP: Cash Balance Plan Not Discriminatory, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled after conducting a seven-day non-jury trial that CIGNA Corp.'s cash balance plan did not run afoul of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's anti-backloading prohibition, Plan Adviser reports.

Plan Adviser recalls that CIGNA converted its traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan in 1998. A group of participants filed a lawsuit in 2001 contending that the cash balance program was age discriminatory, violated ERISA's anti-backloading rule, and resulted in the forfeiture of accrued benefits. The participants further alleged that CIGNA's notice of the plan conversion did not comply with ERISA.

The district court certified the lawsuit as a class action consisting of approximately 25,000 CIGNA employees and retirees in December 2002.

What the plaintiffs saw as age discrimination, Judge Kravitz stated in his order, was only the transition from a traditional pension plan that was heavily age-favored to a cash balance plan that was "still age-favored but less so."

In terms of an ERISA Section 204(b)(1)(H) violation, Judge Kravitz agreed with CIGNA that in determining the "rate of benefit accrual," courts should focus on what an employer puts into a plan, rather than what an employee takes out of the plan at retirement. Judge Kravitz pointed out that while federal courts have differed on the issue of how to define "rate of benefit accrual," the large majority of courts that have found that the phrase should be defined by looking at employer "inputs" rather than employee "outputs."

Also, Judge Kravitz admitted, when there is wear away, even though the employee continues to work for CIGNA and continues to receive benefit credits, the employee's expected retirement benefits have not grown beyond what the employee was entitled to before the conversion.

According to Plan Adviser, the court next rejected the participants' argument that the plan violated ERISA's anti-backloading rule, which prohibits employers from pushing the bulk of retirement benefits to their employees' pensions until late in the employees' careers.

As for CIGNA's notice of the plan conversion, Judge Kravitz said that it was improper, Business Insurance relates. The Philadelphia-based insurer did not give a key notice to employees as required by ERISA, and its summary plan descriptions and other materials were inadequate under the federal statute and in some cases "downright misleading," the judge ruled.

Judge Kravitz pointed out that ERISA emphasizes the importance of disclosing details of a company's pension plan to enable employees to prepare for retirement. This, he said, is where CIGNA failed to fulfill its obligations; the company did not provide its employees with the information they needed to understand the conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan and its effect on their retirement benefits.

CIGNA's statements, the ruling contained, misled plan participants to believe that significant reductions in the rate of future benefit accruals were not a component or a possible result of the cash balance plan.

Business Insurance notes that Judge Kravitz ordered the parties to file briefs by March 17, 2008, regarding potential damages.

COMCAST CORP: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Peer-to-Peer Traffic----------------------------------------------------------The law firm Gilbert Randolph LLP filed a class action with the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Comcast Corp.'s D.C. operations for false advertising related to the speed of its Internet service, Erin Killian of the Washington Business Journal reports.

According to Business Journal, at issue is whether an Internet service provider has the right to manage the flow of Internet traffic. Peer-to-peer files often take up a lot of bandwidth that can slow down networks during peak times.

Named plaintiff Sanford Sidner brings the lawsuit on behalf of D.C. residents who have subscribed to Comcast's high-speed Internet service during the past three years.

The complaint alleges that Comcast (Nasdaq:CMCSA) does not have the "fastest Internet connection" as it advertises because it "intentionally blocks or impedes its customer's access to peer-to-peer file sharing."

According to the report, Philadelphia-based Comcast denies blocking or impeding its service.

"To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told Business Journal. He said that a minority of their customers use peer-to-peer.

"Sometimes we have to delay [the sharing] because of the volume of it," Mr. Douglas said, so that the rest of the company's customers aren't affected by the network being bogged down by peer-to-peer.

According to Business Journal, Mr. Douglas would not comment specifically on the D.C. Lawsuit.

DOEREN MAYHEW: Faces Big Property Scam Allegations in Michigan--------------------------------------------------------------Doeren Mayhew and Co., P.C. -- doing business as Doren Mayhew -- is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 12, 2008, with the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland in the State of Michigan alleging that the company defrauded 500 to 1,200 investors of $74 million to $450 million for ostensible property investments from 1998 until 2007, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, plaintiffs claim that Ed May took their money by lying that several LLCs had contracts to install telecommunications equipment into hotels and casinos, and that Mr. May's partners or agents, defendants James O'Rilley and Tom Fox, participated in the frauds by "plac(ing) their respective wives in charge of bookkeeping of the LLCs formed by May."

The plaintiffs request that the court enter a monetary judgment equal to the actual damages suffered by class members, together with reasonable attorney fees, interest and costs.

The suit is "Kenneth Huff et al. v. Doeren Mayhew & Co., PC, Case No. 08-089299-NM," filed with the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused of Unfair Charges in Calif. Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Discount broker E*Trade Securities, LLC, is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego accusing it of unfair charges, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Josh Mangini claims that E*Trade breaches contracts by charging customers a quarterly "account services fee" though their Brokerage Customer Agreements, which state that no such fees will be charged in the first year.

Mr. Mangini brings this action to recover damages and other relief available at law and in equity on behalf of all persons or entities who were charged the full quarterly account services fee when part or all of the quarter was within the account's first year anniversary.

The plaintiff requests that the court grant the following relief:

-- certification of the proposed class and notice thereto to be paid by defendant;

-- adjudge and decree that defendant has engaged in the conduct alleged;

-- for compensatory and general damages according to proof on certain causes of action;

-- for both pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate on any amounts awarded;

-- costs of the proceedings;

-- reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute; and

-- any and all such other and further relief that this court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Josh Mangini, et al., vs. E*Trade Securities, LLC, Case No. 37-2008-00077999-CU-BC-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.

FORD MOTOR: City of Florence Joins Suit Over Ambulance Troubles---------------------------------------------------------------Recurring engine problems in two ambulances led the city of Florence and its fire department to join a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. on Feb. 12, 2008, Community Press reports.

According to Local12.com, a federal court in Texas is handling the Ford Lawsuit and dozens, potentially hundreds, of fire departments are signing on.

Local 12's Lauren Bercarich notes that constant engine trouble means that the ambulances people rely on are too often out of service.

Chief Marc Muench told Community Press that the city's two six-liter diesel ambulances have been a constant headache since they were purchased in 2005. "They have been problematic to say the least, especially in the configuration of these ambulances," Mr. Muench said. "Thankfully, we've been fortunate to have a reserve ambulance to cover ourselves."

Community Press relates that the Florence Fire Department currently has four ambulances for its more than 5,000 annual service runs, but only two are Ford's six-liter model, which debuted in 2003.

Local 12 cites Mr. Muench as saying that all the problems with the two Ford ambulances can be traced to their diesel engine. The chief said that the vehicles have been off a combined 140 days in three years, which means 140 days in the shop, thanks to a long list of repairs the department has documented.

Mr. Muench also told Local 12 that in times of crisis, they have put an older engine to use, even borrowed an ambulance, and that when the exhaust pipe pumped out smoke, they hobbled into the hospital.

Mr. Muench said he just wants the problem to be fixed by Ford.

Community Press says that, according to Dan Pederson, Esq., of Page, Wolfberg, and Wirth LLC, in Pennsylvania, departments across the country have been experiencing engine problems such as blown gaskets, radiator hoses and sensors. The firm, which specializes in the ambulance industry, was hired by the law firm Weller, Green, Toups and Terrell to seek out departments for the class-action lawsuit filed in Texas.

Florence's two ambulance engines are under warranty until January 2009 and the lawsuit will not cost the city of Florence, the reports note.

On July 20, 2007, a putative class action was commenced against the Company, and others including the Company's officers, directors, employees, and agents with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges violation by the Company of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which prohibits the printing of more than the last five digits of a credit card number or the expiration date on customer receipts.

ISRAEL: Big Retailers Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Eggs-----------------------------------------------------------A motion to accept a class action suit for consumer fraud relating to the sale of eggs branded "Super Fresh" has been filed with the Central District District Court in Tel-Aviv, against a series of retail chains and distributors, Nurit Roth of the Haaretz Daily reports.

Named plaintiff Eli Osteron claims that retail chains have conspired to force Israeli consumers to buy eggs at exaggerated prices, by causing normal, price-regulated eggs to disappear from the shelves of stores all over the country and selling these same eggs under a new name: "Super Fresh."

According to the motion, marketers and retail chains added on about ILS1.1 billion between 2004 and 2007 as a result of allegedly fraudulent sale of Super Fresh eggs.

Mr. Osteron asserts that he has often been unable to find standard eggs on store shelves, and instead offered only the choice of 'Super Fresh' eggs -- at the cost of about 70% more than standard, price-regulated eggs.

According to Mr. Osteron, there is no difference between the two, aside from their different packaging and the exaggerated price of 'Super Fresh' eggs. Mr. Osteron claims that even if there were justification for the sale of 'Super Fresh' eggs, there is no justification for allowing egg distributors to sell these for an average price of 60% to 70% higher than standard eggs.

According to the plaintiff, egg marketers' claim that "Super Fresh" eggs are taken off store shelves eight days after they are laid is unfounded, since retailers do not know when the eggs were laid.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that on various occasions he has seen store shelves offering eggs that were laid more than eight days prior.

In the report, Super-Sol says that it has not yet received the statement of claim.

MERCK FROSST: Seeks Appellate Review of Vioxx Case Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has learned that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench has decided to certify class proceedings in a lawsuit regarding VIOXX(R). The Company intends to seek appellate review of the decision because it believes that each plaintiff's case should be tried separately.

"Our legal strategy remains the same," said Maurice Laprairie, Esq., of MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman LLP, Saskatchewan counsel for Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc. "Although we argued against the creation of a class, the Court's decision still requires that each plaintiff must prove his or her claims on an individual basis because each plaintiff's case is unique and depends on an individual set of facts. Heart attacks, for example, are unfortunately common in the population and caused by many different risk factors."

"The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously over the coming years, and we are confident that the courts will decide these cases based on sound science," said Mary M. Thomson, Esq., of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Canadian national counsel for Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc. "We will continue to argue that centralized judicial management of individual cases, not a class action, is the preferable procedure for trying each case in a fair and expeditious manner."

Merck acted responsibly -- from researching VIOXX prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market -- to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did.

On Nov. 9, 2007, Merck & Co., Inc entered into a resolution agreement concerning individual product liability claims against the Company in the United States. That agreement does not admit fault or causation and does not apply to Canada. VIOXX lawsuits outside the United States are in various stages of the legal process in different countries with different rules and judicial processes.

Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. -- http://www.merckfrosst.com-- is a research-driven pharmaceutical company. Merck Frosst discovers, develops and markets a broad range of innovative medicines to improve human health. The Merck Frosst Centre for Therapeutic Research, one of the largest biomedical research facilities in Canada, has the mandate to discover new therapies for the treatment of respiratory diseases, inflammatory diseases, diabetes and osteoporosis.

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed against Paincare Holdings, Inc.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before the same court, which recite similar allegations.

Subsequently, a lead counsel was selected, a consolidated complaint was filed, the company moved to dismiss, and an oral argument on the motion was held on Jan. 17, 2007, before the Magistrate Judge.

In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from March 24, 2003 and March 15, 2006.

On March 26, 2007, the Federal Magistrate recommended that the District Court dismiss all outstanding claims with leave to amend.

On April 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order adopting the Magistrate’s report and dismissed the Securities Litigation, with leave to amend.

An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 23, 2007. By motion filed June 7, 2007, the Company again moved to dismiss the action.

The defendants, the corporate issuer, and its two top executives, moved to dismiss on the ground that, among other things, the complaint failed to adequately allege scienter.

The court held a hearing regarding the Company's dismissal motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission by the court on Aug. 15, 2007.

In 2008, the motion to dismiss was denied. In denying the defendants' motion, the Court held that a plaintiff alleging fraud in a Section 10(b) action must plead facts rendering an inference of scienter at least as likely as any plausible opposing inference, according to an article by Alan Friedman & Jean Chung at http://www.mondaq.com/.

The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with referral to Judge David A. Baker.

PELLA CORP: Dismissal Request in ProLine Windows Suit Junked------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit against Pella Corporation that alleges Pella's ProLine series of windows suffer from a design flaw that has resulted in widespread failures.

The lawsuit, filed in August 18, 2006, also covers the "250 Series" and "450 Series" windows sold through major retailers such as Lowe's.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Pella ProLine aluminum-clad windows are prone to water penetration resulting in rotting of the internal wood frame beneath the aluminum cladding. Wood rot requires replacement of the window sash and frame. Because of the aluminum cladding, such damage is not always visible to the homeowner.

The suit is "Saltzman v. Pella Corporation et al., Case Number: 1:2006cv04481," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Honorable James B. Zagel, presiding.

QANTAS AIRWAYS: Large Travel Agents Opt Out of Price-Fixing Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The class action against several major airlines over fuel surcharges is likely to be scaled down after large travel agents decided to opt out of the case, News.com.au relates.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 11, 2008, law firm Slater & Gordon launched the action in December 2006 against six airlines on behalf of travel agents in anattempt to recover commission on fuel surcharges.

Slater & Gordon asserts that the six airlines have short-changedtravel agents by up to AU$80 million by failing to include fuelsurcharges when calculating agents' fees. It also alleges thatthe airlines breached the Trade Practices Act by forcing travelagents to record fuel surcharges as a tax rather than part ofthe fare.

According to News.com, the parties were in court on Feb. 20, to finalize the version of an opt-out notice that is to be placed in travel publications. The notice informs agents about the case and allows them to withdraw from it.

However, Justice Moore was told that in effect, "all national chain managers and all state managers will be opting out of the proceedings."

The Australian relates that a number of travel agents have signed contracts with Qantas in which they have agreed to pull out of or never be involved in future legal action relating to the $80-million class action.

However, Qantas said that it would not discuss its commercial contracts and denied that it had tried to force travel agents to opt out of the case.

Travel agents opting out of the case means that hearings will be shorter as a number of witnesses would no longer be required to give evidence.

Qantas barrister James Lockhart said that the airline would be "staggered" if all agencies opted out of the proceedings, and substantial legal issues would still have to be decided.

Up to 1,400 agencies could be involved in the case.

Mr. Lockhart told News.com that Qantas had spent about AU$134,000 preparing for an interlocutory hearing that did not eventuate, and Slater and Gordon agreed to provide AU$100,000 in seven days as security for legal costs.

ROO HD: Denies Wrongdoing to Wurld Media Workers in Buyout----------------------------------------------------------ROO HD Inc. was sued in November 2007 by former employees of Wurld Media who claim that ROO HD's acquisition of Wurld Media assets was structured in a way that would keep ROO HD from paying their salaries and benefits.

In an update, Timesunion.com says that ROO HD, which is a subsidiary of ROO Group Inc. of New York City, responded to the class-action lawsuit in a court filing with the Supreme Court in Saratoga County. In its filing, ROO HD denied that the Wurld Media deal was designed to avoid giving employees back pay and retirement benefits.

Timesunion's Larry Rulison writes that ROO HD argued that the class-action lawsuit is without merit.

ROO HD also stated that it deposited $456,087 into escrow to pay former Wurld Media employees.

"Wurld retained sufficient assets to cover all outstanding claims of all creditors," ROO's attorneys wrote in its Jan. 10, 2008 filing. "Defendant is not responsible for any of Wurld's outstanding debts or obligations to the plaintiffs."

The report recounts that ROO HD acquired Wurld Media assets in July 2007 and then opened an office with about a dozen former Wurld Media employees in Clifton Park. Wurld Media, Timesunion explains, was once a high-flying Saratoga Springs online music and video sharing service and e-commerce business that fell on hard times in 2006. ROO, on the other hand, sells online video software and content.

However, ROO HD abruptly shut the Clifton Park office in January 2008, two months after Wurld Media's co-founder Gregory Kerber was indicted along with former Wurld Media financial officer Richard Saxton on felony grand larceny and money laundering charges, in addition to other financial crimes.

Wurld media's former employees claim in two different class-action lawsuits that Wurld Media management failed to issue paychecks starting in March 2006 and unlawfully deducted 401(k) contributions from salaries without putting the money into the company's retirement plan.

The first lawsuit, Timesunion recalls, was filed in late 2006 against Wurld Media with the federal court in Albany. That case has since gone to arbitration, Timesunion relates.

The class action against ROO HD is the second lawsuit, filed with the state court in Saratoga County in November 2007.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari in "Lopez" Case -----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition requesting that it grant certiorari jurisdiction over a purported class action Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and one of its cruise brands that was dismissed.

The suit, "Lopez v. Royal Caribbean, Case No. 1:05-cv-21159-MGC," was filed in April 2005 with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the suit and held that the case should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Celebrity's collective bargaining agreement.

In June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the suit, and subsequently denied the plaintiff’s petition for re-hearing and petition for re-hearing enbanc.

In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition requesting that the Court grant certiorari jurisdiction over the action, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Lopez v. Royal Caribbean, Case No. 1:05-cv-21159-MGC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Marcia G. Cooke presiding.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Arbitration Order in CA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in the matter captioned "Michael Rogers et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," are appealing an arbitration order in their case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In July 2006, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the company failed to timely pay crew wages and failed to pay proper crew overtime.

The suit seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act and equitable relief damages under the California Unfair Competition Law.

In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the claim and held that it should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Royal Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement.

In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit is "Michael Rogers et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Stephen V. Wilson presiding.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Still Pending----------------------------------------------------------------A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. to transfer an intellectual rights class action filed against it with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida remains pending.

The suit was filed on January 2006. It alleges that the company infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual property by presenting performances on company cruise ships without securing the necessary licenses.

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a permanent injunction against future infringement.

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion is pending, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Deborah A. Batts presiding.

SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces MI Suit Over 3rd-Party Text Messages Fees--------------------------------------------------------------Sprint Nextel Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that it cheats customers and breaches contract by charging them for unwanted third-party text messages, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Mitchell Witkowski challenges the reasonableness of defendants' rates that are charged for air time, but alleges only a breach of contract.

The plaintiff brings the action pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all individual persons or entities in Michigan and all other states who were billed by defendants for third-party text message charges, in breach of contract, at any time during the relevant time period (which shall be the subject of discovery but at least six years prior to the dates of filing).

(b) the amount of additional revenue and profit unjustly derived by defendants from the conduct complained of;

(c) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief; and

(d) whether plaintiff and the class sustained damages and the appropriate measure thereof.

The plaintiff and the class request judgment in their favor in an amount to be determined, plus costs, interest and attorneys' fees, punitive and exemplary damages, and permanent and injunctive relief.

The suit is "Mitchell Witkowski et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., Case No. 2:08-cv-10676," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge John Feikens, presiding.

U.S. FINANCIAL: Sued in CA Over Loans with Negative Amortization----------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Financial Mortgage Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging that U.S. Financial deceives the public by concealing information in mortgage loans with negative amortization, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, the instant action arises out of residential mortgage loan transactions in which Defendants failed to disclose pertinent information in a clear and conspicuous manner to Plaintiffs and the Class members, in writing, as required by law.

This action also concerns the defendant's unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business acts or practices. The defendant engaged in a campaign of deceptive conduct and concealment aimed at maximizing the number of consumers who would accept this type of loan in order to maximize profits, even as it knew the conduct would cause many of its consumers to lose their homes through foreclosure.

The plaintiff brings the action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), and 23(b), on behalf of the following classes:

* The California Class: All individuals who, within the four year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff ’ Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class, received an Option ARM loan through Defendant on their primary residence located in the State of California.

* The National Class: All individuals in the United States of America who, within the four year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff ’ complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class, received an Option ARM loan through Defendant on their primary residence located in the United States of America.

(4) Whether the defendant engaged in unfair business practices aimed at deceiving Plaintiff and the Class members before and during the loan application process;

(5) Whether the defendant, by and through their officers, employees, and agents failed to disclose that the interest rate actually charged on these loans was higher than the rate represented and promised to Plaintiff and the Class members;

(6) Whether the defendant, by and through their officers, employees and agents concealed, omitted and otherwise failed to disclose information they were mandated to disclose under TILA;

(8) Whether the defendant failed to properly disclose the process by which negative amortization occurs, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans;

(9) Whether the defendant's failure to apply the plaintiff's and the Class members’ payments to principal as promised in the standardized form Note(s) constitutes a breach of contract, including a tortiuous breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

(10) Whether the defendant's conduct in immediately raising the interest rate on consumers' loans so that no payments were applied to the principal balance constitutes a tortiuous breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

(11) Whether the defendant's marketing plan and scheme misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were fixed rate loans, when Defendant knew that only the periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that interest rates were not, in fact, "fixed;"

(12) Whether the terms and conditions of the defendant's Option ARM home loan are unconscionable;

(13) Whether the plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages;

(14) Whether the plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to punitive damages; and

(15) Whether the plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to rescission.

The plaintiff and all Class members pray for:

-- an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Plaintiff and their counsel to represent the Class;

-- actual damages according to proof;

-- compensatory damages as permitted by law;

-- consequential damages as permitted by law;

-- punitive damages as permitted by law;

-- rescission;

-- equitable relief, including restitution;

-- restitutionary disgorgement of all profits Defendant obtained as a result of their unfair competition;

-- interest as permitted by law;

-- Declaratory Relief;

-- a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to permanently include in every Option ARM loan and disclosure statement:

(i) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure statement(s) as required under 12 C.F.R. Section 226.17 by;

(ii) clear and conspicuous disclosure in the Note(s) and the disclosure statement(s) that payments on the variable interest rate loan during the initial period at the teaser rate will result in negative amortization and that the principal balance will increase as required under 12 C.F.R. Section 226.19; and

(iii) clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial interest rate provided is discounted and does not reflect the actual interest that Plaintiff and Class members would be paying on the Note(s);

-- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

-- such other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is "Ann S. Hill et al. v. U.S. Financial Mortgage Corporation," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

U.S. SECRET SERVICE: Inspector Admits Destroying Original Proof---------------------------------------------------------------Senior U.S. Secret Service inspector Carrie Hunnicutt admitted on Feb. 20, 2008, that she destroyed original evidence sought in a long-standing lawsuit alleging that the service routinely discriminates against African American agents, Austin American-Statesman reports.

According to American-Statesman, the team of assistant U.S. attorneys representing the Secret Service told U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson that they did not know that the inspector got rid of the documents just two days before she was scheduled to testify in the case.

Ms. Hunnicutt testified that she questioned more than 150 senior service officials under an order from Judge Robinson about their search for all paper documents related to the promotion of black agents in a civil lawsuit filed in federal court eight years ago.

The report recalls that nearly 60 African Americans allege in sworn statements that they were leapfrogged by white agents who scored lower on promotional exams and forced to endure the use of the word "nigger" on the job. They are seeking certification for a class-action lawsuit, but so far have not made it past the discovery stage.

Ms. Hunnicutt testified that she destroyed surveys from 50 high ranking officials; a statistical report; fax sheets and documents that showed who was contacted during the service's search for paper documents in the case. The senior inspector said she placed the documents in a "burn bag" on Jan. 30, 2008.

American-Statesman relates that the Feb. 20 hearing was the 7th hearing held by Judge Robinson to determine whether to sanction the service again for failing to produce credible testimony and evidence in the lawsuit. Judge Robinson has already sanctioned the service three times.

Judge Robinson told the lawyers that she was "shocked" that a Secret Service agent would destroy documents. The Secret Service's own counsel has ordered the agency's employees to retain all documents relevant to the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Marina Utgoff Braswell told Judge Robinson that she and the rest of the legal team did not learn about the extent of the destruction until Ms. Hunnicutt testified.

"We are all learning for the first time what happened here," Ms. Braswell said. Ms. Hunnicutt's supervisor told the government lawyers that there were some "scraps of paper" that were destroyed but he did not elude to the destruction of the original surveys.

Ms. Braswell said that she will find out more information about the destroyed documents in advance of the hearing because of a court order forbidding Ms. Hunnicutt from talking to anyone about the case.

The team of lawyers from Hogan & Hartson and Relman & Dane, representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit pro bono, said that the burning of the documents is an "outrageous act" and in defiance of the service's own order to preserve all documents in the case.

Under questioning by assistant U.S. attorney Michelle Johnson, Ms. Hunnicutt said she destroyed the documents because she wanted the most accurate ones to be sent to court. Ms. Hunnicutt said she noticed that some of the surveys, about 50, were misnumbered in January, so she "transferred" the correct information to the newly numbered surveys.

However, during the cross-examination, E. Desmond Hogan, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs, argued that by destroying the original documents, the court would have no way to independently verify her work as accurate.

The suit is "Moore, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Secret Service), Case No. 00-0953," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Richard W. Roberts, with referral to U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson.

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Still Faces Stockholder Litigation in Illinois----------------------------------------------------------------Management Holdings, Inc., continues to face a stockholder class action filed with an Illinois State Court, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In December 1999, an individual brought an action against Waste Management Inc., five former officers of WM Holdings, and WM Holdings' former independent auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, in Illinois state court on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who purchased WM Holdings common stock before Nov. 3, 1994, and who held that stock through Feb. 24, 1998.

The action is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com-- is a provider of integrated waste services in North America. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer, recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuits in California------------------------------------------------------------Waste Management, Inc., faces two separate wage and hour lawsuits pending in California, which are each seeking class-action status, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Both actions make the same general allegations that the defendants failed to comply with certain California wage and hour laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest periods, and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com-- is a provider of integrated waste services in North America. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer, recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.

WINN-DIXIE: Securities Suit vs. Individual Defendants Dismissed---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action filed against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie and certain present and former executive officers alleging claims under the federal securities laws.

By way of a court order, the securities laws claims were consolidated and directed to proceed as a single consolidated action.

As a result of Winn-Dixie's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented the plaintiffs in the class action from proceeding against the Company. Any claim against the Company were subordinated under the Plan pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same manner as the Company's existing shares, which were canceled without any distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company. The discharge injunction imposed by Winn-Dixie's Restructuring Plan will protect the Company from the assertion of any claim in the future.

As to the individual co-defendants in the securities class-action suit, on May 10, 2005, the District Court entered an order staying the suit as to all parties and all issues in light of the Company's Chapter 11 filing.

On April 5 and May 1, 2007, the District Court entered orders lifting the stays in the suit. Thus, in June 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class-action lawsuit filed an amended and consolidated complaint against the individual defendants, who, in turn, requested for it to be dismissed.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the District Court granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the securities litigation, according to the Company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 9, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00071," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington presiding.

WINN-DIXIE STORES: Settlement Reached in Fla. ERISA Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------A settlement was reached in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

In March and April 2004, three other putative class action lawsuits were filed with the District Court against the Company and certain of its present and former executive officers and employees, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, related to the Company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

By way of a court order, the ERISA claims were consolidated and were to proceed as a single and consolidated action.

However, as a result of Winn-Dixie's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented the plaintiffs in the class action suit from proceeding against the Company. Any such claims against the Company were subordinated under the Reorganization Plan pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same manner as the Company's existing shares, which were canceled without any distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company. The discharge injunction imposed by the Plan will protect the Company from the assertion of these claims in the future.

As to the individual co-defendants in the class-action suit, on May 10, 2005, the District Court entered an order staying the suit as to all parties and all issues in light of the Company's Chapter 11 filing.

On April 5 and May 1, 2007, the District Court entered orders lifting the stays in the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended, and consolidated complaint against the individual defendants, who asked for it to be dismissed.

On or about Nov. 6, 2007, the individual defendants and applicable insurers reached agreements with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 9, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington presiding.

WINN-DIXIE STORES: No Ruling Yet on Fla. Bias Case Removal Bid--------------------------------------------------------------A decision has yet to be issued with regards to a motion that seeks for the removal from a state court in Florida to the bankruptcy court of a purported class action filed against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

In December 2007, 26 current and former employees filed a putative class action lawsuit with the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Florida, against Winn-Dixie. The suit is alleging company-wide systemic age discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment and that of others who were similarly-situated.

The Company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit and has answered the complaint and filed motions asserting various defenses to the claims. It has also sought to remove the case to the bankruptcy court on the ground that the action is, either partially or in its entirety, barred by the Company's Plan of Reorganization.

To date, these motions remain pending with the state and bankruptcy courts, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 9, 2008.

Winn-Dixie -- http://www.winn-dixie.com-- operates supermarkets throughout the Southeastern U.S. with stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The company also operates distribution centers in Jacksonville, Miami and Orlando, FL; Montgomery, AL; and Hammond, LA. In addition, Winn-Dixie's manufacturing plants produce or process a variety of products including coffee, tea, spices, carbonated and non-carbonated drinks, frozen pizza, ice cream, sherbet and milk.

Charys operates two segments: Remediation and Reconstruction and Wireless Communications and Data Infrastructure. Charys' Remediation segment provides services to respond to catastrophic losses, like hurricanes; its Wireless segment offers telecommunication services to large service providers.

According to the complaint, defendants engaged in an elaborate accounting fraud in connection with several companies Charys acquired.

In the closing months of 2005, Charys acquired Viasys Network Services, Inc. and Viasys Services, Inc., as well as Method IQ, Inc. The sellers of Viasys and MIQ were to receive "earn out" payments if, after the acquisitions, Charys achieved certain goals for revenue and earnings.

The complaint alleges that the pre-acquisition revenues of Viasys and MIQ should have been properly recorded on the books of those companies. Instead, they were improperly deferred and recorded on the books of Charys after it acquired those companies. In addition, the post-acquisition expenses of Viasys and MIQ should have been recorded on the books of Charys, but were instead improperly accrued and recorded on the books of Viasys and MIQ. As a result, Charys' revenue and gross profit were overstated during the Class Period, and it expenses were understated.

On June 8, 2006, Charys acquired Crochet & Borel Services, Inc., using artificially inflated stock as currency. Defendants engaged in the same accounting scheme: the reported C&B revenue and income from operations were materially overstated because Charys had fraudulently included pre-acquisition C&B revenues and had omitted C&B post-acquisition expenses. In addition, during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly ignored that C&B's goodwill was materially impaired by well over $100 million, but failed to disclose this fact. Charys, however, continued to request extensions of time from the SEC in which to file its annual report on Form 10-KSB.

On August 14, 2007, the end of the Class Period, when no large catastrophic-loss contracts for C&B were announced, the investment community knew that a large write-down of C&B's goodwill was imminent. The stock price dropped, and continued to decline thereafter. On November 5, 2007, Charys announced a $202.5 million write-down of goodwill attributable to C&B. Charys also finally filed its fiscal 2007 form 10-KSB on that date, confirming that C&B had been an unprofitable business whose goodwill should have been written down as of October 31, 2006.

On February 14, 2008, Charys filed for bankruptcy and announced that defendant Billy V. Ray, Jr. had resigned.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and a proposed class of persons who purchased and/or acquired the common stock of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (OTC:MMAB.PK) between May 3, 2004 and January 29, 2008, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division.

The complaint charges MuniMae and six of the Company's officers and directors:

-- Chief Executive Officer, Michael L. Falcone;

-- Chairman and former CEO, Mark K. Joseph;

-- former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, William S. Harrison;

-- former CFO, Melanie M. Lundquist;

-- Chief Operating Officer and interim-CFO, Charles M. Pinckney; and

-- CFO, David Kay,

with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly knowingly or recklessly issued false and misleading statements that materially misrepresented MuniMae's earnings and financial results, causing the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated throughout the class period.

According to the Complaint, on March 10, 2006, MuniMae issued a press release disclosing that the Company would be restating more than three years of earnings and that the Company would delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal 2005. According to this press release, the restatement was needed to correct accounting errors related to:

However, Defendants assured investors that the restatement would "not impact cash available for distribution," and would actually result in an increase in "previously reported net earnings" for certain periods.

The complaint further alleges that, after obtaining numerous extensions to complete its restatement of financial results from the SEC and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on January 28, 2008, MuniMae disclosed that it would not complete its restatement of financial results by the March 3, 2008 deadline imposed by the NYSE, and therefore, Defendants expected the Company's stock to be delisted. On this news, the price of MuniMae stock dropped from $17.20 per share to close at $9.19 per share on January 29, 2007, representing a 47% single-day decline.

The following day, on January 29, 2008, MuniMae filed with the SEC a report on Form 8-K that provided additional details regarding the restatement, including the fact that the Company was required to consolidate on its balance sheet approximately 200 "variable interest entities" in which it holds minority interests, and the Company would be writing-down the fair value of impaired assets "held-for-sale" including loans, bonds, derivatives, guarantee obligations, and mortgage servicing rights. On this news, the price of MuniMae stock dropped an additional 22%, to close at $7.13 per share on January 30, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

OPNEXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.--------------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of Opnext, Inc. (NASDAQ: OPXT) stock from the date of the Company's Initial Public Offering on February 14, 2007, through February 13, 2008.

The complaint charges that Opnext and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively the "Registration Statement") in connection with the Company's IPO.

According to the Complaint, on or about February 14, 2007, the Opnext commenced its IPO priced at $15.00 per share for over 16 million shares of stock. The Complaint asserts that Opnext's Registration Statement was materially false because:

(i) the Company's reported net income for the quarter and six months ended December 31, 2007 was overstated; and

(ii) the Company's reported net loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 was understated.

The Complaint further alleges that on February 13, 2008 the Company announced, among other things, the Company's previously issued financial statements could no longer be relied upon and that it had to restate them. As a result of these adverse disclosures, Opnext's stock price dropped, damaging investors.

SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIRF) between October 30, 2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges SiRF and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and prospects caused SiRF's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

SiRF, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development and marketing of semiconductor and software products that are designed to enable location-awareness utilizing global positioning system and other location technologies worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning SiRF's business, financial position and future prospects were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the truth about demand for the Company's products and the effect of the Company's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. on SiRF's business and financial performance. As a result of defendants' false statements and failures to disclose, SiRF stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On February 4, 2008, SiRF shocked the market when it issued a press release announcing disappointing and surprising financial results for the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007.

This news caused shares of SiRF to plummet $8.91 per share -- a 54% drop from the previous day's closing price of $16.27 -- to close on February 5, 2008, at $7.36 per share on extremely heavy volume of more than 63 million shares traded.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Has 400 Claims at Dec. 31--------------------------------------------------------------Zenith National Insurance Corp., at Dec. 31, had about 400 open asbestos-related workers' compensation claims, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 13, 2008.

These claims have loss reserves of US$3.7 million compared with the Company's total workers' compensation net loss reserves of US$1.1 billion.

The Company has exposure to asbestos losses in its workers' compensation segment. Historically, the Company has paid and closed about 4,000 such asbestos-related workers' compensation claims for a total of US$11.5 million.

The Company also has potential exposure to environmental and asbestos losses and loss adjustment expenses beginning in 1985 through its reinsurance segment, but the business it reinsured in this segment contains exclusion clauses for such losses.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had about 500 open asbestos-related workers' compensation claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007)

Woodland Hills, Calif.-based Zenith National Insurance Corp. is the holding company for Zenith Insurance and ZNAT Insurance, which underwrite workers' compensation policies in more than 40 states. About 1,400 independent agents and brokers sell the firm's insurance products, mainly in California and Florida.

Since 1987, Central Hudson, along with many other parties, has been joined as a defendant or third-party defendant in 3,310 asbestos lawsuits commenced in New York State and federal courts. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits have each sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages from all defendants.

The cases were brought by or on behalf of individuals who have allegedly suffered injury from exposure to asbestos, including exposure which allegedly occurred at the Roseton Plant and the Danskammer Plant.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,976 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group, Inc.'s utility subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to Albany, N.Y.

Defendants include Ashland Oil, Inc. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, which are two that directly employed Mr. Downs.

Attorney Cindy Kilblinger represents the Downs couple.

According to the suit, Mr. Downs was exposed to asbestos and other harmful dusts while working. He claims the companies in the suit manufactured, supplied, sold, distributed, used or installed the asbestos-contained products.

While handling the products, Mr. Downs claims he breathed asbestos and other harmful dusts, which caused his lung cancer.

Mr. Downs claims that along with lung cancer, he suffered great pain of body and mind, suffering, distress, fear, embarrassment, inconvenience, economic loss, including medical and pharmaceutical bills, and loss of quality of enjoyment of his life.

Mrs. Downs claims she has suffered the loss of general services, companionship and society of her husband.

In the 12-count suit, Mr. and Mrs. Downs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-108 will be assigned to a visiting judge.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Case v. DuPont, Chevron Filed in Tex. Court----------------------------------------------------------------The family of James P. Lee, a deceased refinery worker, on Feb. 12, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. in Jefferson Country District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The Lee family claims the chemical companies negligently exposed Mr. Lee to asbestos during his career. June Lee represents Mr. Lee's estate.

According to the petition, Mr. Lee worked at DuPont's Beaumont Works Facility. During his employment, he used and was exposed to toxic and carcinogenic dusts, including asbestos.

The suit said, "As a result of such exposure, James P. Lee, developed asbestos related lung disease from which he died a painful and terrible death on April 3, 2007."

The suit continues by alleging DuPont and Chevron negligently failed to timely and adequately warn workers of the dangers of asbestos dusts, and also failed to take the necessary engineering, safety, industrial hygiene and medical precautions to ensure that Mr. Lee was not exposed to toxic and carcinogenic dusts.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Expenses Drop to $68.4M at Dec.---------------------------------------------------------------EnPro Industries, Inc.'s asbestos-related expenses declined to US$68.4 million in 2007, compared with US$359.4 million in 2006, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 14, 2008.

Expenses dropped when the Company adjusted the liability of its subsidiaries from the low point in the range of possible liabilities to a point within the range.

Expenses in 2007 consisted of US$25.8 million in cash, principally for legal fees and expenses, and a non-cash charge of US$42.6 million for periods added to the liability in order to maintain management's 10-year estimate and for adjustments to assumptions used to calculate the liability.

New asbestos claims against the Company's subsidiaries continue to fall. In 2007, 5,200 new claims were filed, a 30 percent decrease compared with 2006, more than 60 percent below the level of 2005 and almost 90 percent below the peak year of 2003, when 44,700 new claims were filed.

Asbestos-related expenses were at US$30.9 million for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$305.1 million for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Payments for asbestos-related claims and expenses, net of insurance recoveries, were at US$24.9 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$38 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $437.5M Liability at Dec. 31---------------------------------------------------------------EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability was at US$437.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$479.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 14, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos liability was at US$86.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$88.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was at US$311.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$396.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos-insurance receivable was at US$70 million, compared with US$71.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker's Kin Sues Nippon Express, Nichias--------------------------------------------------------------Tadashi Yoshizaki's wife and two daughters, on Feb. 14, 2008, filed an asbestos lawsuit against his former employer, Nippon Express Co., and Nichias Corp., the company where he was dispatched, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Mr. Yoshizaki died from a type of lung cancer after retiring from an asbestos-related job. His family demands JPY47 million in compensation.

According to the lawsuit filed with the Osaka District Court, Mr. Yoshizaki, who died at 67 in 2005, worked at the Oji factory of Nichias Corp., a building materials manufacturer, as an employee of Tokyo-based transport firm Nippon Express for two years and two months from July 1969.

Mr. Yoshizaki then worked at the factory's warehouse, shipping asbestos.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 117,400 Claims Pending v. Goodyear at 2007---------------------------------------------------------------The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had about 117,400 pending asbestos-related claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 124,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 14, 2008.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 117,200 asbestos claims pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007)

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 2,400 new claims filed and 9,000 claims settled/dismissed during the year. Asbestos-related payments were US$22 million.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 3,900 new claims filed and 5,400 claims settled/dismissed during the year. Asbestos-related payments were US$19 million.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the Company or present in certain of its facilities. Typically, these suits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 49,100 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about US$297 million through Dec. 31, 2007 and US$272 million through Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$127 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$125 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and related defense costs was US$76 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$63 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was US$51 million, compared with US$62 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company estimates that it is reasonably possible that its gross liabilities could exceed its recorded reserve by US$20 million to US$30 million, about 50 percent of which would be recoverable by its accessible policy limits.

The Company said it believes that, at Dec. 31, 2007, it had at least about US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance policies.

Some of these excess policies provide for payment of defense costs in addition to indemnity limits. A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is included in the US$71 million insurance receivable recorded at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs, available with its primary insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at Dec. 31, 2007.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires. Together with its U.S. and international subsidiaries and joint ventures, the Company develops, manufacture, market and distribute tires for most applications. The Company also manufactures and market rubber-related chemicals for various applications. The Company, with about 72,000 associates worldwide, manufactures its products in 64 manufacturing facilities in 25 countries.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Spends $3.5M for Cleanup in 2007---------------------------------------------------------------Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. had capital expenditures of about US$3.5 million in 2007 under an environmental cleanup plan, which also provides for asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 14, 2008.

In 2006, the Company recorded capital expenditures of about US$2.9 million for a remediation plan, including any necessary remediation of asbestos-containing materials in Company sites. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007)

The Company has adopted a plan for the testing, repair, and removal, if necessary, of underground fuel storage tanks at its bottlers in North America. This plan includes any necessary remediation of tank sites and the abatement of any pollutants discharged.

The plan extends to the upgrade of wastewater handling facilities, and any necessary remediation of asbestos-containing materials found in the Company's facilities.

The Company estimates that its capital expenditures will be about US$4 million in 2008 and 2009 under this plan.

In the Company's opinion, any liabilities associated with the items covered by such plan will not have a materially adverse effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements.

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. bottles and distributes Coca-Cola products. The Company accounts for for 19 percent of worldwide sales of Coca-Cola's beverages. The Company also bottles and distributes other beverages, including Canada Dry, Dr Pepper, Nestea, bottled waters, and juices. The Coca-Cola Company owns about 35 percent of the Company.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Has 42T Claims at Dec. 31---------------------------------------------------------------BorgWarner Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, recorded about 42,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 14, 2008.

Of these outstanding claims, about 32,000 are pending in just three jurisdictions, where significant tort reform activities are underway.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had about 42,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 32,000 are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort reform activities are underway. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

The Company continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. Management believes that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos.

In 2007, of about 4,400 claims resolved, 194 (4.4 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2006, of about 27,000 claims resolved, 169 (0.6 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Before June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended, settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement.

In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance coverage.

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$30.3 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received US$9.7 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance of US$20.6 million is expected to be fully recovered.

At Dec. 31, 2006, insurers owed US$11.7 million in association with these claims.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has an estimated liability of US$39.6 million for future claims resolutions, with a related asset of US$39.6 million to recognize the insurance proceeds receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims that have yet to be resolved.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the comparable value of the insurance receivable and accrued liability was US$39.9 million.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Action Still Pending v. BorgWarner Inc.----------------------------------------------------------------BorgWarner Inc. continues to face an asbestos-related declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., filed by Continental Casualty Company and related companies (CNA) against the Company and certain of its other historical general liability insurers.

In the suit filed in January 2004, CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including whether the available limits exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied.

However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of the action. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product claims.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Links Drop in Expenses to 2007 Payments----------------------------------------------------------------USG Corporation states that accrued expenses decreased to US$234 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 from US$358 million as of Dec. 31, 2006 largely due to payments made in 2007 for asbestos property damage settlements and a lower level of accrued employee incentive compensation in 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has recorded valuation allowances totaling US$63 million with respect to various U.S. federal and state net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards, the substantial majority of which arose from the funding of the asbestos trust in 2006.

Chicago-based USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a wide range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction as well as products used in certain industrial processes.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG States No Further Obligations to Trust---------------------------------------------------------------USG Corporation states that it has no further payment obligations to a trust created and funded under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code for the payment of all of the present and future asbestos personal injury liabilities of the debtors.

The Company's plan of reorganization confirmed in 2006 resolved the debtors' liability for all present and future asbestos personal injury and related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2008.

Under the plan, the Company created and funded the trust. In 2006, the Company made payments totaling US$3.95 billion to the asbestos personal injury trust.

The asbestos personal injury trust is administered by independent trustees appointed under the plan. The trust will pay qualifying asbestos personal injury and related claims against the debtors pursuant to trust distribution procedures that are part of the confirmed plan.

A key component of the Company's plan of reorganization is the channeling injunction which provides that all present and future asbestos personal injury claims against the debtors must be brought against the trust and no one may bring such a claim against the debtors.

This channeling injunction applies to all present and future asbestos personal injury claims for which any debtor is alleged to be liable, including any asbestos personal injury claims against U.S. Gypsum, L&W Supply or Beadex, as well as any asbestos personal injury claims against the debtors relating to A.P. Green Refractories Co., which was formerly one of the Company's subsidiaries.

The Company's plan of reorganization and the channeling injunction do not apply to any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries, any companies it acquired during its reorganization proceedings, or any companies that it acquired or may acquire after its emergence from reorganization.

Chicago-based USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a wide range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction as well as products used in certain industrial processes.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Pays $40M for Damage Settlements in '07----------------------------------------------------------------USG Corporation, in 2007, made total payments of about US$40 million for asbestos property damage settlements, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2008.

Asbestos property damage claims against the debtors were not part of the asbestos trust or the channeling injunction. The Company's plan of reorganization provided that all settled or otherwise resolved asbestos property damage claims that were timely filed in its reorganization proceedings would be paid in full.

During the Company's reorganization proceedings, the court set a deadline for filing asbestos property damage claims against the debtors. In response to that deadline, about 1,400 asbestos property damage claims were timely filed. More than 950 of those claims were disallowed or withdrawn.

In 2006 and 2007, the Company reached agreements to settle all of the open asbestos property damage claims filed in its reorganization proceedings.

In 2006, the Company made total payments of about US$99 million for certain of these settlements. Based on its evaluation of its asbestos property damage settlements, the Company reversed US$44 million of its reserve for asbestos-related claims in 2006.

The current estimate of the cost of the one remaining asbestos property damage settlement that has not yet been paid, and associated legal fees, is about US$8 million and is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Chicago-based USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a wide range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction as well as products used in certain industrial processes.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Norfolk Southern Corporation said that its exposure to occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as well as repetitive motion) are often not caused by a specific accident or event but rather as the result from a claimed exposure over time.

Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail industry for decades, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2008.

The actuarial firm provides an estimate of the occupational claims liability based upon the Company's history of claim filings, severity, payments and other pertinent facts. The liability is dependent upon management's judgments made as to the specific case reserves as well as judgments of the consulting actuarial firm in the periodic studies.

The actuarial firm's estimate of ultimate loss includes a provision for those claims that have been incurred but not reported. This provision is derived by analyzing industry data and projecting the Company's experience into the future as far as can be reasonably determined.

Adjustments to the recorded liability are reflected in operating expenses in the periods in which such adjustments become known.

Based in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation controls a major freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Norfolk Southern Railway Company is engaged in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Accrues $250M Liabilities at Dec.----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc.'s accrued asbestos-related liabilities were US$250 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$557 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2008.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into two general categories: refractory products and friction products.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $939M NARCO Receivable ----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the settlement liability of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$939 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$955 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued before the sale. NARCO retained all liability for the other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the Company. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's amended confirmation order. This appeal is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007 and US$1.3 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current claims have been made as of Dec. 31, 2007. About US$95 million of payments due under these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

The US$939 million coverage reimburses Honeywell for portions of the costs incurred to settle NARCO related claims and court judgments as well as defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Suit v. Honeywell Ongoing in N.Y.----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc. continues to face an asbestos-related insurance action filed by Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, Travelers sued the Company and other insurance carriers, disputing obligations for North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

In the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company prevailed in the New York action on a critical choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered policies.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 51,658 Bendix Claims at Dec.---------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc. recorded 51,658 asbestos-related claims for its Bendix friction materials business for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 57,108 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 2,771 Bendix claims filed and 8,221 Bendix claims resolved. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 4,391 Bendix claims filed and 26,785 Bendix claims resolved.

From 1981 through Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has resolved about 113,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. Trials covering 126 plaintiffs resulted in 125 favorable verdicts and one mistrial. Trials covering 10 individuals resulted in adverse verdicts. However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, five are or shortly will be on appeal, and the remaining three claims were settled.

About 45 percent of about 52,000 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2007 are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. About 52,000 pending claims also include claims filed in jurisdictions such as Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that historically allowed for consolidated filings.

In these jurisdictions, plaintiffs were permitted to file complaints against a pre-determined master list of defendants, regardless of whether they have claims against each individual defendant.

During 2006, about 16,000 cases were dismissed. More than 85 percent of these dismissals occurred in Mississippi as a result of judicial rulings relating to non-resident filings and venue.

The Company has about US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$197 million (at Dec. 31, 2007) and US$302 million (at Dec. 31, 2006) are reflected as receivables in its.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Had $1.65B Liabilities in '07----------------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, recorded a total of US$1.655 billion in asbestos liabilities for its Bendix friction materials business (US$517 million) and its former subsidiary North American Refractories Company (NARCO) (US$1.138 billion).

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a total of US$1.819 billion in asbestos liabilities for Bendix (US$528 million) and NARCO (US$1.291 billion).

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded a total of US$1.136 billion in insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities, of which US$197 million were for Bendix and US$939 million were for NARCO.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded a total of US$1.257 billion in insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities, of which US$302 million were for Bendix and US$955 million were for NARCO.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As a result of PCC's bankruptcy filing, the Company recorded an after-tax charge of US$36 million in 2001 to fully impair its investment in PCC and discontinued recognition of equity earnings.

At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about 12,400 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim.

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products.

In the bankruptcy court in April 2000, PCC obtained a preliminary injunction against the prosecution of asbestos actions arising from PCC's products against its two shareholders to afford the parties a period of time in which to negotiate a plan of reorganization for PCC (the PCC Plan).

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with certain of its insurance carriers and representatives of current and future asbestos claimants on the terms of a settlement arrangement applicable to claims arising from PCC's products.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against it and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations.

The PCC Plan received a favorable vote from creditors in March 2004. Hearings to consider objections to the PCC Plan were held in the Bankruptcy Court in May 2004. In February 2006, the Bankruptcy Court requested that the PCC Plan proponents delete references to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and resubmit the PCC Plan. The final round of oral argument was held on July 21, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying confirmation of the PCC Plan for reasons set out in a memorandum opinion. Several parties, including the Company, filed motions for reconsideration.

These motions were argued on March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on an Amended Plan of Reorganization that would make it unnecessary for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for reconsideration.

If the Bankruptcy Court does not approve the PCC Plan in its current form or parties to the proceedings agree to amend the PCC Plan, changes to the PCC Plan are reasonably likely to occur that could significantly reduce the value Corning would pay in such a changed plan.

Two of the Company's primary insurers and several excess insurers have commenced litigation for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be affected by the settlement arrangement.

Since March 31, 2003, the Company has recorded total net charges of US$1 billion to reflect the agreed settlement contributions and subsequent adjustments for the change in the settlement value of the components.

The liability expected to be settled by contribution of the Company's investment in PCE, assigned insurance proceeds, and the 25 million shares of the Company's common stock, which totals US$833 million at Dec. 31, 2007, is recorded in the other accrued liabilities component in its consolidated balance sheets.

The remaining portion of the settlement liability, which totals US$169 million at Dec. 31, 2007, representing the net present value of the cash payments, is recorded in the other liabilities component in the Company's consolidated balance sheets.

Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated makes fiber-optic cable, which it invented nearly four decades ago. Once known mainly for its kitchenware and lab products, the Company now provides optical fiber and cable products and communications network equipment. Its display technologies unit produces glass substrates for flat-panel displays.

The Company recorded 1,903 asbestos claims filed against it and its majority owned subsidiaries for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 2,138 claims for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007)

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and unasserted asbestos matters was US$270 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$306 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Of the obligation at Dec. 31, 2007, US$226 million was related to unasserted claims while US$44 million was related to asserted claims. About US$17 million was included in current liabilities at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$22 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

It is reasonably possible that future costs to settle asbestos claims may range from about US$245 million to US$295 million. However, the Company said it believes that the US$270 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2007, is the best estimate of its future obligation for the settlement of asbestos claims.

Fort Worth, Tex.-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, through its subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation business. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company and its subsidiaries had about 40,000 employees. The rail operations of BNSF Railway Company, the Company's principal operating subsidiary, comprise one of the largest railroad systems in North America.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Lawsuits Ongoing v. Alcoa, Units----------------------------------------------------------------Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiaries, as premises owners, continue to face several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various company facilities.

In addition, an Alcoa subsidiary company has been named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint where the company's involvement is not evident. Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed.

To date, the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every case that was actually placed in line for trial.

The Company, its subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations.

The Company said it believes that between its reserves and insurance it is adequately covered for its known asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the financial condition of the Company.

Incorporated in Pennsylvania, Alcoa Inc., which is based in New York, deals with the production and management of primary aluminum, fabricated aluminum, and alumina combined, through its active and growing participation in all major aspects of the industry: technology, mining, refining, smelting, fabricating, and recycling. The Company operates in 44 countries.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $121M Liabilities at Dec. 31--------------------------------------------------------------3M Company's liabilities for respirator mask or asbestos matters amounted to US$121 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$18 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 15, 2008.

The Company's receivables for respirator mask or asbestos matters amounted to US$332 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$380 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

For more than 25 years, the Company has defended and resolved the claims of hundreds of thousands of individual claimants alleging injuries from occupational dust exposures.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent about 8,750 individual claimants, a decrease from about 17,700 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31, 2006.

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

In many of these lawsuits and claims, the Company is named as a defendant with multiple co-defendants where no product the Company manufactured is identified or where the Company is ultimately determined not to have manufactured the products identified by the plaintiffs.

The Company's vigorous defense of this litigation has resulted in dismissals of many claims without any payment by the Company, and jury verdicts for the Company in seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the one jury verdict adverse to the Company.

Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in about 66 percent of the 3,979 lawsuits that were pending against the Company at the end of 2007 in all jurisdictions.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global presence in the following businesses: industrial and transportation; health care; display and graphics; consumer and office; safety, security and protection services; and electro and communications. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company employed 76,239 people, with 34,138 employed in the United States and 42,101 employed internationally.

A resident of Albany, N.Y., Ms. Scheler filed an appeal to the file on Jan. 16, 2008. The DEQ's Courtney Brown said the appeal was denied.

Ms. Scheler said that she plans to ask for another hearing. She said the project was supposed to be painting only, but the workers pulled "off a few shingles at the top of the house."

According to the DEQ, Ms. Scheler owns a rental property at 3755 Knox Butte Road. In August 2007, she reportedly hired two workers for a renovation project and they removed about 293 square feet of siding that was put into trash bags and placed into Dumpsters. They also removed an old stovepipe that included insulation tape.

During an Aug. 16, 2007 inspection, DEQ staff saw "pieces of siding waste scattered along the sides of the residence and saw that the insulation tape on the old stove pipe was in very poor condition."

Samples were taken to the DEQ's laboratory. The side waste was found to contain 10 percent chrysotile asbestos and the insulation tape contained 50 percent.

The DEQ inspectors noted the workers broke the siding when removing it from the home and that creates the potential for asbestos particles to be released into the air. The same was noted for the insulation tape.

The DEQ also charged that the workers did not "properly label and package the friable ACWM (asbestos containing waste material) generated by the renovation project in leak-tight containers."

The DEQ regulates handling and disposal of any materials that contain more than one percent asbestos.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitter's Kin Blames BAE for Wrongful Death---------------------------------------------------------------The family of Alan Crosthwaite, a Mellor, England local who worked on the 'Dambusters' bouncing bomb, filed an asbestos lawsuit against BAE Systems plc after he died due to long-term exposure to asbestos, Stockport Express reports.

Mr. Crosthwaite was employed from the 1950s to 1984 as an aircraft maintenance fitter. He worked on many aircraft, including Lancasters and Nimrods, using asbestos tape daily and being continually exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.

In 2003, Mr. Crosthwaite began to suffer from breathlessness, weight loss and extreme fatigue and died in October 2004 from mesothelioma at the age of 78.

Specialists discovered a shadow on Mr. Crosthwaite's lung and biopsies revealed it was mesothelioma.

The claim is based on negligence and breach of duty and says Mr. Crosthwaite was not warned about the dangers of exposure to asbestos, was not given any training or provided with respiratory protective equipment and there was no or no adequate extraction equipment to ventilate the area.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Priory Could Pay Fines for Cleanup Breaches----------------------------------------------------------------The Priory Community School in Worle, North Somerset, England, may be penalized over the removal of asbestos at the school, Weston & Somerset Mercury reports.

Asbestos removal from the school cost GBP135,000 and there may still be more to pay. The cost mounted up at the site off Queens Way last summer 2007 after contractors disturbed asbestos.

Specialists had to be called in to get rid of asbestos, so North Somerset Council has said it will allocate GBP100,000 from its emergency capital works budget towards the removal.

The Health and Safety Executive was also called in 2007 to inspect the school after the incident and its results have not yet been given.

If a fine is handed out by the HSE, which is responsible for health and safety in the workplace, the school will have to find the funds to pay up.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Delays New Orleans Parish Cleanup---------------------------------------------------------------LegalView.com reported that because of the large number of asbestos-contaminated buildings and debris still sitting in a New Orleans, La. parish from Hurricane Katrina, a controlled cleanup burn will occur, according to a LegalView press release dated Feb. 18, 2008.

Three years after the hurricane hit New Orleans, officials are unable to demolish several buildings for fear that asbestos dust will contaminate surrounding areas.

Instead, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a controlled burn of the wreckage in a specially designed incinerator, which will occur while air quality is monitored.

Asbestos is a highly toxic mineral that was used in the construction of homes, schools, universities, government buildings and office buildings.

The mineral was used because of its resistance to heat and fire damage as well as its strength. However, it was discovered that the inhalation of asbestos fibers and dust was highly toxic to individuals and can cause asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Plumber's Death to Asbestos--------------------------------------------------------------An inquest at Eastbourne, East Sussex, England, linked the death of plumber George Byworth to exposure to asbestos, Hastings & St. Leonards Observer reports.

Mr. Byworth had been involved with removing asbestos on commercial and industrial heating systems in his younger days and told his wife, Linda Byworth, the air had been "thick with asbestos dust."

Mrs. Byworth told the inquest the 62-year-old Mr. Byworth had gone to his GP, Dr. Peter Williams at the Arlington Road Medical practice, in November 2006 with a pain in his lower back.

Mr. Byworth had various tests and scans and was admitted to the district general, Brighton and Guys Hospital and was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in January 2007.

Mr. Byworth died on Feb. 22, 2008.

Pathologist Dr. Christopher Moffat said Mr. Byworth had a very large tumor which had spread around the lung and caused it to collapse. He also said fibers of asbestos were found in the lungs and in his opinion, the cause of death was due to mesothelioma.

Deputy coroner Joanna Pratt said she was satisfied Mr. Byworth's cancer had been caused by exposure to asbestos. She recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland Gov't. to Launch GBP1.9M Inquiry--------------------------------------------------------------The Council of the City of Edinburgh, Scotland, will launch a GBP1.9 million investigation into 1,090 Council-owned property in a bid to identify asbestos levels, Edinburgh Evening News reports.

On Feb. 16, 2008, the Council admitted its current records are "inadequate," and do not meet health and safety regulations.

The project is designed to ensure materials that contain asbestos are kept in a safe condition if they pose a minimum risk, or removed if there is an "unacceptable risk" to human health.

The Health and Safety Executive served the Council with an improvement notice after identifying problems with the local authority's processes for dealing with asbestos.

A central database will be set up to record all information relating to asbestos at Council-owned premises like schools, community centers, care homes, offices and "investment properties" which are leased out.

At the same time, surveys will be done to assess the energy performance of buildings, as well as compliance with disability discrimination laws.

The money is set to be included in the council budget for 2008-2009, due to be adopted on Feb. 21, 2008.

City finance leader Gordon MacKenzie said, "This is a very serious issue, and it's vitally important that we carry out this survey work. "Sadly, this has been starved of resources up to now, but this is our first budget and we intend to make provision."

To meet its obligations, the Council requires accurate electronic floor plans showing a record of the location and condition of asbestos-containing materials.

The GBP1.9 million will be spent on the project between 2008 and 2010, with annual maintenance costs of around GBP150,000 per year thereafter.

Council officials have warned that failure to carry out the work will be a breach of legal requirements and could result in action being taken against the local authority.

Basic information is available for only around 50 percent of Council properties, which will need to be updated, while the remainder of the buildings will require a full survey.

City development director Andrew Holmes said, "Given the requirements, there is an urgent need for a major one-off survey of operational property to obtain current electronic plans and survey information."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family Seeks Repairman's Former Colleagues---------------------------------------------------------------The family of Geoff Edmonds, a repairman from Scarborough, England who died from exposure to asbestos, has launched an appeal to trace his former colleagues, Scarborough Evening News reports.

The 79-year-old Mr. Edmonds, who worked for local engineering company Brogden and Wilson for almost 30 years, died from the asbestos cancer mesothelioma in 2007.

It is believed Mr. Edmonds was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while working for the heating and ventilation engineering company, which closed about 15 years ago.

It is understood that neither Mr. Edmonds nor former workmates were informed of the dangers associated with asbestos.

Lawyers acting for Mr. Edmonds' family now need to speak to his former colleagues to find out more about his work at the firm to support a claim for compensation by his widow.

Mr. Edmonds' son, Chris, said, "It's important that anyone who worked with him or relations of those people contact our solicitors to gain further information about the asbestos exposure. We have information about where he worked and how he was exposed to asbestos but we need witnesses to verify that."

Mr Edmonds, of Westway, was born in Scarborough and after leaving school went to work for Brogden and Wilson in Sussex Street in 1941.

At Brogden and Wilson, where Mr. Edmonds worked since 1941, he repaired and maintained boilers, radiators and pipework and left in 1969.

Mr. Edmonds then worked for a couple of smaller companies to do the same work before moving into the steel industry and retired aged 65 but later became ill.

Davey Hall, regional secretary for trade union Unite, which is working with the solicitors, added, "As part of our successful extended family service, we're pleased to be able to offer support to Mrs Edmonds and her family and hope this appeal is successful in tracing some of Mr Edmonds' former workmates."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Employers----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, issued split rulings in proceedings involving asbestos, in which Employers' Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Global Reinsurance Corporation—United States Branch are named parties.

Employers and Global entered into a Certificate of FacultativeReinsurance effective from Jan. 7, 1969 through July 1, 1972 and later extended to Jan. 1, 1973 (Certificate) whereby Global agreed to indemnify Employers for 20 percent of Employers' losses above US$5 million (up to Employers' US$20 million limit) under a policy of insurance issued by Employers to The Coca-ColaCompany (including its subsidiary, Aqua Chem) (Coke).

By that time, Employers had paid US$6,324,711.68 to Coke for certain asbestos claims. In its Demand, Employers alleged that Global failed to pay Employers, as required by the Certificate, 20 percent of the excess over US$5 million of these asbestosclaim payments, or US$264,924.34.

Under related proceedings before the District Court, the parties agreed to proceed before a sole arbitrator, Michael D. Young. In its post-mediation order, the District Court maintained jurisdiction over related arbitrations, including theinstant case.

During the three-day arbitration hearing from Nov. 6, 2006 to Nov. 8, 2006, Mr. Young admitted 55 exhibits into evidence and six witnesses (three each for Employers and Global), including experts, testified and were cross-examined.

On Dec. 29, 2006, Mr. Young issued a Partial Final Award andStatement of Reasons (Partial Final Award), in which he made two separate liability findings based on his interpretation of the Certificate.

On March 28, 2007, Employers petitioned the District Court to confirm the Partial Final Award's first liability finding but to vacate the second liability finding, which limited Employers' recovery for defense costs paid by it to Coke.

Global opposed Employers' petition as premature and argued that the Partial Final Award was not "final" under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because damages remained unresolved.

On June 27, 2007, the District Court conferred in chambers with the parties and expressed its concern that the petitions were premature. To avoid a decision on issues that the parties had contracted to arbitrate, which would have interfered with the arbitration, the Court declined to rule on either party's petition.

Instead, by order dated July 11, 2007, the District Court referred the parties to Mr. Young "for further proceedings." The Court also ordered the parties to appear at a pretrial conference on Oct. 25, 2007, should they be unable to reach aresolution in arbitration.

On July 17, 2007, Mr. Young conducted a teleconference with the parties to discuss the meaning of the remand. Employers asserted that the District Court intended to instruct Mr. Young to reconsider the Partial Final Award, while Global arguedthe Court intended the Arbitrator only to determine damages.

On Oct. 1, 2007, Mr. Young requested in an email that the parties "seek written instruction from Judge Baer as to his intention regarding the purpose of the remand," and expressed his concern that he lacked authority to reconsider thePartial Final Award.

In a letter dated Oct. 3, 2007, Employers sought from the District Court an order that would permit Mr. Young to reconsider any aspect of the Partial Final Award. The Courtdeclined to issue Employers' proposed order and, instead, on Oct. 10, 2007, endorsed Employers' letter with a direction to the parties to "try to resolve the concern voiced" by Mr. Young. On Oct. 11, 2007, Mr. Young heard oral argument.

On Nov. 9, 2007, Mr. Young issued a Final Award.

On Nov. 21, 2007, Employers petitioned the District Court to confirm Mr. Young's Final Award, and on Dec. 6, 2007, Global cross-petitioned to vacate the Final Award in its entirety.

The District Court heard oral argument on the motions on Jan. 8, 2008.

Employers' petition was granted and Global's cross-motion to vacate was denied.

The arbitration award issued by Mr. Young on Nov. 9, 2007 was confirmed and the Clerk will, upon Employers' request, prepare a judgment.

From 1957 to 1985, Mrs. Barras washed the work clothes of her husband, Louis Barras, a refinery worker at E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's Beaumont, Tex., facility.

Mrs. Barras suffers from malignant mesothelioma and claims her sickness stems from inhaling asbestos fibers from her husband's tainted clothes.

In addition to DuPont, some of the defendants named in the suit include Union Carbide Corporation, Anchor Packing Co., Guard-Line, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited and Owens-Illinois, Inc.

According to the plaintiffs' petition, Mrs. Barras "inhaled great quantities of asbestos fibers" in the household setting as a result of Mr. Barras' employment with DuPont.

A few of Mrs. Barras' household duties at the family's Fourth Street home included shaking out and laundering her husband's work clothing, cleaning up the washer and dryer area, changing out the washing machine lint filters and traveling in Mr. Barras' work car, the suit said.

The suit claims DuPont should have foreseen that employees, such as Mr. Barras, would be exposed to asbestos while performing their work duties and transport the asbestos fibers on work clothing, bodies and hair to their households.

In addition to other allegations, the plaintiffs claim DuPont is negligent for the following regarding Mrs. Barras' exposure:

Failing to take reasonable precautions to prohibit the transportation of asbestos fibers from its jobsite to the household setting;Failing to provide offsite laundry facilities for employees' work clothes;Failing to adequately warn of the dangerous characteristics and serious health hazards associated with asbestos exposure; andFailing to provide information regarding reasonably safe wearing apparel and proper protective equipment.

The plaintiffs allege that each defendant aided, abetted, encouraged or directed the negligent and intentional acts of every other defendant.

The Barras family sues for US$15 million in compensatory damages and US$15 million in punitive damages, plus past and future mental anguish, medical expenses and loss of services.

Mr. Barras seeks damages for loss of his spouse's services, consortium, financial support and the care and comfort of her society in addition to damages for medical expenses, nursing care and mental anguish.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Overturns Travelers $500M Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The Travelers Companies, Inc., on Feb. 19, 2008, said that the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's approval of a US$500 million asbestos-related insurance settlement, Business Insurance reports.

The decision, made on Feb. 15, 2008, would reverse the US$500 million settlement in March 2006 of certain insurance claims arising from a suit by Johns-Manville Corp.

The case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for reconsideration. In its decision, the Appeals Court said the bankruptcy court that approved the settlement had no legal jurisdiction to do so.

Travelers, Manville's longtime primary insurer, agreed in 2004 to settle three groups of "direct action" lawsuits filed against it by claimants allegedly injured by products made by Manville. The plaintiffs argued that Travelers violated state and common law in handling the claims and did not disclose what it knew of the asbestos hazards.

Travelers said that it would weigh the latest ruling to determine whether to appeal further. If the 2nd Circuit's decision becomes final, the settlements will be voided and Travelers said it "intends to litigate the direct action cases vigorously."

Another party involved in the case is Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co., which like Travelers was named in a direct action suit.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker Awarded $2.25M in N.Y. Case----------------------------------------------------------------A New York City jury awarded US$2.25 million in the case of 73-year-old Leonard Shafer who had exposure to asbestos in his workplace as a civilian employee at the New York Naval Shipyard (Brooklyn Navy Yard) in the 1950s, according to a Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, L.L.C. (LPK) press release dated Feb. 19, 2008.

LPK helped prove Mr. Shafer developed pleural mesothelioma. He never wore respiratory protection and was unaware of the dangers of asbestos.

LPK lawyer Carmen St. George said, "Mr. Shafer endured pain and suffering that spanned an eighteen month time period from the time he was diagnosed until the time of the death. Many years ago, nobody knew the affects of being exposed to asbestos in the workplace and unfortunately today, we are being faced with the dangers."

John Crane, Inc. was the company that manufactured and supplied the asbestos-containing stuffing tube packing material to the U.S. Navy for use on Navy ships.

In this asbestos exposure lawsuit, the jury determined that exposure to the John Crane packing material caused Mr. Shafer's mesothelioma, and that his illness was reasonably foreseeable to the company.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Perth Mechanic Gets AUD840T in Compensation----------------------------------------------------------------Antonino Lo Presti, a motor mechanic from Perth, Australia, has been awarded in AUD840,000 in compensation for exposure to asbestos in brake linings while working at two dealerships of Ford Motor Company of Australia, News Limited reports.

The 58-year-old Mr. Lo Presti, who suffers from serious fibrosis and requires constant oxygen assistance, has become the first mechanic in Australia to win a successful negligence verdict against a car company for exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Lo Presti's lawyer, Michael Magazanik, from Slater and Gordon, said the Feb. 19, 2008 judgment in the Western Australian Supreme Court could open the way for thousands of other mechanics who suffer from asbestos related diseases.

Between 1970 and 1987, Mr. Lo Presti used compressed air to blow out the brake drums and handle asbestos brake linings when brakes were serviced or changed.

The Sicilian-born Mr. Lo Presti was diagnosed with asbestosis and pleural disease in July 2001. However, Ford argued it was not asbestosis but a pulmonary fibrosis of unknown cause.

Ford admitted it knew by 1970 that exposure to certain asbestos fibers could cause asbestos related diseases but denied it knew Mr. Lo Presti's type of work could increase the risk.

Mr. Lo Presti said while he worked for Ford he was not aware of the asbestos in the brake linings or the danger it posed.

Justice Andrew Beech ruled Ford ought to have known that if no protective measures were taken the asbestos fibers released from the brake linings could cause life threatening injury. He said Ford owed its mechanics a duty of care and should have warned them of the dangers.

Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia president Robert Cojakozic said the matter should have been resolved earlier.

The HSE has again urged construction companies to take sensible, effective precautions to protect employees and others affected by work at height.

This follows a sentencing at Aylesbury Crown Court, at which ERL of St. Albans, Hertfordshire, was fined a total of GBP30,000, and ordered to pay GBP21,360.11 costs for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) and regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

On Feb. 8, 2008, ERL had been found guilty after trial at Aylesbury Crown Court following an incident that led to two of its workers suffering serious personal injury. The company had been contracted to demolish and clear farm buildings at Church Farm, Church Lane, Oving, in Buckinghamshire.

On May 17, 2006, two men working on a derelict barn fell through a fragile asbestos cement roof and suffered multiple fractures and spinal injuries.

At a Feb. 19, 2008 hearing, Clarks, of Luton, Bedfordshire, acting as the Principal Contractor on the same project, was fined GBP7,500, and ordered to pay GBP9,388.64 in costs. Clarks had earlier pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the HSWA at Aylesbury Magistrates Court.

HSE Inspector Norman Macritchie, who investigated the incident said, "Today's fines highlight the seriousness of this, entirely preventable, incident. Here, two employees, who were permitted to walk on the fragile roof of an unstable building, fell around four meters onto a concrete floor. Both suffered serious injuries and were evacuated to Stoke Mandeville Hospital by helicopter ambulance. I wish them the best possible recovery."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to Carry Out More Tests in U.K. Schools----------------------------------------------------------------The Health and Safety Executive might carry out more asbestos tests for asbestos after an ITV news investigation revealed some local authorities had not carried out necessary checks, Building reports.

The investigation said all schools were told to make checks for asbestos within "weeks, not months" after it was found in system built schools in 2006. However, some checks had not been carried out a year later.

The investigation used the example of Hay Lane Special School in Brent, where an ITV reporter and a team of specialists found asbestos on site.

In a statement responding to the investigation, the HSE said an inspector had made a site visit as soon as it was alerted to the situation, and remedial work had been carried out by licensed asbestos contractors.

The HSE said further tests had been carried out to check for asbestos, discussions had taken place with Brent council about other schools and HSE had taken "appropriate enforcement action." The HSE also said it had been given information from the ITV survey and would carry out further checks as appropriate.

In autumn 2006, the HSE found asbestos fibers could be released in schools built under the Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. School Worker's Death Linked to Hazard----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest at Bradford Coroners' Court heard that the death of Marjorie Kitson, who worked as a "dinner lady" at the Woodbottom Primary School in Baildon, England, was linked to asbestos, Telegraph & Argus reports.

The 85-year-old Mrs. Kitson worked at the school where asbestos was discovered in flooring tiles before it was demolished.

The inquest also heard how Mrs. Kitson may have come into contact with asbestos as a munitions worker during the war at a factory in the Wakefield Road area of Bradford.

Mrs. Kitson was diagnosed with cancer when she attended Bradford Royal Infirmary suffering from breathing difficulties. She died at the hospital a few weeks later and a post-mortem examination discovered traces of asbestos.

Coroner Roger Whittaker recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease and said, "Looking at her work history I take the view that there is a causal relationship between her course of work and the cause of her death."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Barking and Dagenham Group Calls On Victims----------------------------------------------------------------The Barking and Dagenham Asbestos Victims Support Group are launching an appeal for former residents and workers to get in contact with them so they can compile a record about those who have been affected, according to the group's press release dated Feb. 16, 2008.

The appeal is being launched at Barking Town Hall, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, on Feb. 27, 2008 at 2pm and is hoping to attract those who have been affected by asbestos related diseases.

Attending the event will be Dagenham MP John Cruddas, a mesothelioma victim, a medical expert and someone who will be giving advice about any entitlement victims may have to benefits.

The Barking and Dagenham Asbestos Victims Support Group was set up in order to offer free advice and support to asbestos sufferers and their families.

The group now has drop-in sessions and free telephone advice for anyone who has been affected by it and doesn't know what to do. The group has professionals who work closely with the Benefits Agency and can help victims with compensation claims, provide contacts and fill in forms.

One of the reasons that the group was set up in this area is because Barking and its surrounding towns have a bad history when it comes to asbestos. As a result of this, the area has seen a large number of people suffering from asbestos related diseases like mesothelioma and asbestos cancer.

Because these illnesses can take decades to develop workers at the support group want to hear from people regardless of whether they know they are ill or not.

This part of London has an exceptionally high asbestos mortality rate and statistics have revealed that people living in Barking and Dagenham are more likely to be ill with a long-term disease than anywhere else in London.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Firefighters May be Exposed to Hazard----------------------------------------------------------------A firehouse in North Bend, Wash., with a staff including 15 firefighters and 10 paramedics, in mid-February 2008 was evacuated and immediately shut down because air-quality testing revealed high levels of asbestos, TransWorldNews reports.

The staff was relocated to auxiliary locations where they will operate out of until a remedy to the contamination is determined.

This incident follows closely on the heels of another in which a Washington D.C. investigation found three firehouses with dangerous asbestos levels in the D.C. metropolitan area in October 2007.

Asbestos was used liberally in firehouse construction leading up to the late 1970s, when it was banned in most capacities. Today it is coming back to haunt these firehouses, as older fixtures begin to decay and the asbestos fibers within them become a true health concern for firefighters and paramedics.

Firehouses require a great deal of insulation, for which asbestos materials were prominently used. Asbestos was included in compounds including concrete, floor or ceiling tiles, and coverings for piping or electrical fixtures. When intact and stable, these materials are generally not a concern.

However, as the years go on, these materials begin to break down to the point where asbestos could become a real concern.

Studies have indicated that nearly 80 percent of buildings built before 1978 contain at least some asbestos-containing materials, indicating the widespread nature of the problem.Many of these buildings are historic firehouses and other publicly funded municipal buildings. Costs of renovation and asbestos-removal have been prohibitive in remedying these issues.

Firefighters, paramedics, and all others in the vicinity of these materials could potentially be at risk of asbestos exposure.

Ms. Fitzgerald and Mr. Hammock married in September 1992 and their son was born in June 1993. The Simpson Circuit Court entered a decree of dissolution in September 1999.

In relevant part, the decree discussed a lawsuit Mr. Hammock initiated in October 1997 against his employer because of his alleged exposure to asbestos.

Ms. Fitzgerald asserted a marital interest in the proceeds, if any, of Mr. Hammock's pending asbestos litigation against his employer, the Medical Center.

In February 2006, Ms. Fitzgerald learned that the asbestos matters had been "resolved to all parties' satisfaction." Thus, she moved the Simpson Circuit Court to divide Mr. Hammock's settlement between the parties as marital property.

The Domestic Relations Commissioner (DRC) recommended that Ms. Fitzgerald's motion be denied since Mr. Hammock and the Medical Center settled his claim when his only remaining cause of action was for the tort of outrage and "pain and suffering" damages.

The circuit court approved the DRC's recommendations after reviewing the complaint, summary judgment order, and confidential settlement agreement in Mr. Hammock's claim, as well as Ms. Fitzgerald's exceptions to the DRC's report and Mr. Hammock's response thereto. This appeal followed.

Mr. Hammock sued his employer in October 1997 for alleged exposure to asbestos. The circuit court subsequently granted a summary judgment in favor of the employer on Mr. Hammock's claims of negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability, leaving Mr. Hammock's claim for outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress.

While it has not been discerned from the record when Mr. Hammock began working for the Medical Center, he admitted in response to Ms. Fitzgerald's motion to divide his settlement that he was married to her "from Sept. 23, 1992 to Aug. 31, 1999 while he was an employee at the Medical Center at Bowling Green."

Further, Mr. Hammock did not dispute Ms. Fitzgerald's assertion on appeal that he was exposed to asbestos at work for at least two years while the parties were married. Finally, Mr. Hammock sued his employer in October 1997.

Thus, whether Mr. Hammock's injury occurred on the dates of his exposure to the asbestos or the date when he became aware of the exposure, the injury clearly occurred during the parties' marriage. As such, whether his settlement is marital property turns on the type of damages the settlement represented.

Ms. Fitzgerald appealed from an order denying her post-dissolution motion to divide as marital property certain money Mr. Hammock received in settlement of the asbestos lawsuit. The Appeals court affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court.

Mr. Fobbs served on active duty in the Merchant Marines from April 1942 to August 1945. He died on Jan. 2, 1985. The death certificate reflected that he died from pneumococcus meningitis due to sepsis and a urinary tract infection.

In August 1998, Mrs. Fobbs' surviving spouse, Valerie M. Fobbs, filed a claim for service connection for the cause of Mr. Fobbs' death. She contended that the his cause of death was related to exposure to asbestos while in service.

The Veterans Affairs regional office issued rating decisions in November 2000, February 2002, and March 2003 denying Mrs. Fobbs' claim. In May 2003, she filed an appeal as to the Board's denial of her claim for service connection for the cause of Mr. Fobbs' death.

Upon appeal, the Board requested a medical opinion regarding Mrs. Fobbs' claim. The physician responded that Mr. Fobbs' "asbestos exposure history, if any, had no bearing on his death."

On June 23, 2006, the Board issued the decision here on appeal. In that decision, the Board found:

There was no competent medical evidence of record that indicated Mr. Fobbs' potential in-service exposure to asbestos form April 1942 to August 1945 led to the development of a lung disability decades later. Moreover, an opinion from a VA physician in September 2005 was that asbestos exposure had no bearing on Mr. Fobbs' death. Accordingly, the competent evidence of record fails to support Mrs. Fobbs' contentions that Mr. Fobbs' period of active duty that ended in August 1945 resulted in a disability that materially contributed to his death.

Mrs. Fobbs appealed.

The Appeals Court vacated the Board's June 23, 2006 decision and the matter was remanded to the Board for readjudication.

According to the complaint, Mr. Yarber was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 1, 2007, and died a short time later. His estate claims that during the course of his employment, and during home and automotive repairs, he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around.

From 1940 to 1959, Mr. Yarber worked as a pipefitter, welder, and iron worker at various locations.

Mr. Yarber's estate claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people.

Mr. Yarber's estate also alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

The estate also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

Mr. Yarber's estate also claims that they had sought, but had been unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Mr. Yarber's estate claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.

The complaint states that as a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Yarber's estate claims he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him prior to his death.

The estate seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentencing of N.Y. County Worker Postponed---------------------------------------------------------------The sentencing of John M. Chick, a former employee of Cayuga County, N.Y., employee John M. Chick, has been postponed because the judge in the case, Frederick J. Scullin Jr., is ill, The Post-Standard reports.

The sentencing was originally scheduled for Feb. 20, 2008 in the U.S. District Court. The sentencing will take place at 11 a.m. March 6, 2007 in Syracuse, N.Y.

Mr. Chick, the only person to be charged in the illegal removal of a malfunctioning, asbestos-laden boiler in 2006 from the county's Board of Elections building on Court Street, faces up to five years in federal prison and a US$250,000 fine. The boiler parts were dumped in the Auburn city landfill.

The 61-year-old Mr. Chick pleaded guilty in January 2007 to conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Mulls Appeal to Lo Presti Case Ruling---------------------------------------------------------------Ford Motor Company of Australia is considering whether to appeal against a ruling in the Western Australia Supreme Court that awarded AUD840,000 in damages to Antonino Lo Presti, a former brake mechanic, ABC News reports.

Mr. Lo Presti, who serviced brakes for Ford for 17 years, was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2001.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the Supreme Court found Ford had breached its duty of care to Mr. Lo Presti by failing to warn him about the dangers of asbestos in the brakes.

Mr. Lo Presti's lawyers say the case sets a precedent for other mechanics to make claims.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCATT Campaigns v. House of Lords Decision---------------------------------------------------------------On Feb. 20, 2008, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) launched its postcard campaign to overturn the House of Lords decision to end compensation for people with pleural plaques, Building reports.

UCATT gathered outside the Ministry of Justice with a giant postcard, along with Labor MPs and people who have the scarring of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos.

UCATT is issuing 100,000 postcards addressed to Justice Minister Jack Straw in an attempt to overturn the ruling.

In October 2007, Law Lords ruled to end compensation for people with pleural plaques.

UCATT said the ruling would save insurance companies over GBP1 billion in compensation payments.

The Scottish Executive has indicated it will overturn the ban.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dock Worker Sues Law Brothers for GBP250T--------------------------------------------------------------Arthur Charlton, who contracted mesothelioma after years of shifting asbestos-filled sacks at the Manchester, U.K., docks, sues his former employer Law Brothers Road Service Ltd., claiming up to GBP250,000 damages, Manchester Evening News reports.

The 83-year-old Mr. Charlton says he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers when he worked for Law Brothers. He has accused the London-based firm of negligence and says it failed to warn him of the risks to his health from asbestos dust.

A writ has been issued at the High Court by Mr. Charlton's solicitors. Law Brothers was dissolved in 2007 but the dissolution has been declared null and void in the High Court.

A former Royal Air Force man, Mr. Charlton used to load sacks of asbestos on to a lorry from ships at Manchester docks.

Mr. Charlton's writ says many of the sacks were damaged and he inhaled large amounts of asbestos. He allegedly had to sweep up the dust after he had loaded up.

Mr. Charlton developed chest pains in 2007 and was admitted to Hope Hospital, Salford, before undergoing treatment at Wythenshawe Hospital.

Mr. Charlton says the firm failed to instruct him in precautions, failed to provide him with breathing apparatus, failed to damp down asbestos and failed to give him a safe system of work.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CLC Delays Call for Ban on Asbestos Mining---------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian Labour Congress' decision on whether to call for a ban on asbestos mining has been put on hold after pressure from its Quebec affiliate, the Quebec Federation of Labour, CBC News reports.

For decades, the CLC has refused to criticize an industry that is criticized internationally as a deadly threat to its workers and the public at large.

In fall 2007, CLC president Ken Georgetti said he was embarrassed by Canada's leading role in the global asbestos trade and promised that at their next meeting, the labor body's leaders would finally call for a ban on asbestos production in Canada.

However, CBC News has learned that the executive committee meeting came and went with only a promise to debate the issue again soon.

Michel Arsenault, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, convinced his CLC colleagues not to call for a ban until after a new Health Canada study on the risks of asbestos is completed and made public.

In a CBC News interview, Mr. Arsenault insisted working in an asbestos mine was safe, saying people in many countries had developed a "psychosis" over the substance.

Roughly 700 people work in Quebec's asbestos industry. Canada is the only developed nation still producing asbestos, which is called a deadly threat by the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Association for Cancer Research and many more health agencies.

Quebec, home to Canada's only two asbestos mines, has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world.

The Canadian government believes asbestos is safe if handled properly and has spent nearly CDN20 million in the past two decades to promote exports of the mineral, almost all of it going to developing nations for use in construction material.

However, Mr. Georgetti argued any appeal by the CLC would not immediately end the practice of asbestos mining in Canada. He called for the federal government to take a lead role in closing the mines, including providing financial support for the miners, and their families and communities when the industry finally ceases production.

Roughly 97 percent of Canada's production of asbestos is exported, mostly to developing countries including India, Indonesia and Pakistan.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25T Claims Still Pending v. Fairmont Supply----------------------------------------------------------------A CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, Fairmont Supply Company, which distributes industrial supplies, still faces about 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi and New Jersey, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont.

While Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time and, in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

Pittsburgh-based CONSOL Energy Inc. is a multi-fuel energy producer and energy services provider serving the electric power generation industry in the United States. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company produced high-Btu bituminous coal from 17 mining complexes in the U.S., including a fully consolidated, 49 percent owned, variable interest entity, and a 49 percent equity affiliate.

ASBESTOS ALERT: Salton Defends v. 3 Suits over Applica Products---------------------------------------------------------------Salton, Inc. is a defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the plaintiffs have alleged injury as the result of exposure to asbestos in hair dryers distributed by affiliate Applica Incorporated over 20 years ago.

Although Applica never manufactured those products, asbestos was used in certain hair dryers sold by it before 1979. There are numerous defendants named in these lawsuits, many of whom actually manufactured asbestos containing products.

At this time, the Company said it does not believe it has coverage under its insurance policies for the asbestos lawsuits, according to its quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 14, 2008.

Description:The Company markets and distributes branded small household appliances. It markets and distributes small kitchen and home appliances, pet and pest products, and personal care products. Customers include mass merchandisers, specialty retailers and appliance distributors primarily in North America, South America, Europe and Australia.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.